Adnexal masses are found in women of all ages, both pre- and postmenopausal. A large majority of them are benign and are diagnosed incidentally. Some cases, nonetheless, pose diagnostic and clinical challenges regarding the character of the lesion (whether benign or malignant). Correct preoperative classification is crucial for proper management both in terms of the scope and technique of surgery as well as the choice of the medical center where a given medical procedure is to be held (an gynecologic oncology center/a gynecologic ward). The usefulness of various imaging modalities (each characterized by a given level of sensitivity and specificity) for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer has been analyzed in multicenter studies. Studies by international groups, such as the IOTA, indicate the possibility of applying various diagnostic algorithms, relying on ultrasound assessment (Simple Rules model), complex mathematical models (LR1, LR2), biomarker measurements (ROMA, ROCA, OVERA), or a conjunction of clinical data, serum marker levels and ultrasound findings (ADNEX, RMI). All these models facilitate a differential diagnosis of ovarian tumors and help to triage patients into low-, moderate- or highrisk groups, thus warranting correct classification of patients for further management even when expert diagnosis is not feasible, and optimizing the quality of care provided. This study is a review of the available predictive formulas utilizing ultrasound findings, serum biomarker measurements and complex mathematical models as well as newly proposed diagnostic algorithms, based on the results of the most recent studies and guidelines of various gynecologic and obstetric societies. They may be helpful in day-to-day practice of gynecologists, aiding preoperative classification of adnexal masses as likely benign or malignant.

7. Merz E, Weber G, Bahlmann F et al.: A new sonomorphologic scoring system (Mainz Score) for the assessment of ovarian tumors using transvaginal ultrasonography. Part I: A comparison between the scoring-system and the assessment by an experienced sonographer. Ultraschall Med 1998; 19: 99–107.